Mark Ungrin
LightNews LightNews
banner
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Mark Ungrin
@mark-ungrin.bsky.social
8.6K followers 930 following 4.9K posts
Parent. Interdisciplinary biomedical researcher. Hardline scientist. PhD (Medical Biophysics, Cellular & Molecular Biology). Faculty. New platforms and real-world impact, emphasis on scientific rigour, reproducibility and efficiency. Diverse interests.
Posts Replies Media Videos
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Province that has no plan to deal with the #longCOVID destroying the healthcare workforce turns to AI to hallucinate a world in which that problem has a solution that doesn't involve facing reality.
In the wake of a scandal involving fabricated sources found in the province’s Education Accord, The Independent has confirmed another major government-commissioned policy report contains false citations like generated by artificial intelligence, calling into question the credibility of policy papers involving the use of AI. Authored by global consulting firm Deloitte and published by the Department of Health and Community Services in May, Newfoundland and Labrador’s Health Human Resources Plan contains at least four citations which do not, or appear not to, exist. The report cost the province nearly $1.6 million, according to documents obtained through an access to information request and published on blogger Matt Barter’s website. The Health Human Resources Plan was commissioned by the previous Liberal government as part of its efforts to develop an effective human resource strategy for the province’s healthcare sector, which has been plagued by nurse and doctor staffing shortages.
November 23, 2025 at 8:09 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
But also the school-absences story is just...seriously WTF is wrong with these people? Are they so terrified of criticism from pseudoscientific loons that they just won't discuss COVID? So out of touch that they don't know this stuff? Just phoning it in? 🤷

www.nationalacademies.org/read/27756/c...
An image showing the many different types of damage long COVID does to the body.
November 23, 2025 at 7:03 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Also this posted by @catinthehat.bsky.social over on the Bad Place.
Image showing dramatic increase in long term illness and disability starting in 2020.
November 23, 2025 at 6:28 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
The information that could have stopped the pandemic in 2020, that Dr. Morawska was desperately trying to teach WHO infection control leaders in 2020, was known for 👉84 years👈 before these events (documented in @carlzimmer.com's excellent book AIR-BORNE):

(figure: academic.oup.com/aje/article/...)
A page from Carl Zimmer's book AIR-BORNE: Kerkhove started the conversation off politely, but it quickly devolved. Some WHO representatives rejected Group 36's concerns out-right, dismissing their evidence as weak. Julian Tang, a British virologist with Group 36, pushed back, pointing out that WHO was claiming that fomites and large droplets spread SARS-CoV-2 while it had no rigorous proof of its own. Before long, Jimenez recalled, the temperature hit the boiling point. He watched John Conly scream at Morawska. "He kept yelling, 'But, Lidia, where is your evidence? Where is your evidence?" Jimenez recalled. "I was thinking, 'Jesus Christ, what is this?" The Group 36 scientists would later publish a collective account of the shocking experience. "After the call was finished, disappointed and frustrated, we wondered, Why are they acting like this?" they wrote. "Why are they so bluntly rejecting our arguments?" I later asked Conly about Group 36's account. He stressed that he was not directly involved in the conflict over WHO's guidelines. With over thirty advisors from around the world helping to develop the guide-lines, he wasn't that high on the WHO ladder. Conly thought that scien-tists like Li and Morawska did great work, but he saw many gaps in the evidence about how Covid-19 spread. They all deserved careful scientific inquiry. With so much complexity and uncertainty to contend with, dis-putes were inevitable. "The flattest pancake in the world has two sides," Conly told me. Reeling in frustration after the April 3 call, Group 36 conferred about what to do next. "We were like, 'Okay, we need to find more evidence," Jimenez said. They had to find an outbreak of Covid-19 that they could document, taking proper account of the role that air played in the infections. A plot from Wells' 1934 paper showing particles on the order of 100 microns or less will evaporate to airborne aerosol size before they have time to fall to the ground from head height. Associated text reads: residues or nuclei physically comparable with particles of fine dust may be of considerable hygienic importance. The size of droplet nuclei depends upon the amount of solid matter contained in the evaporating droplet. Because of the high percentage of water in body fluids, nuclei will be small in proportion to the size of the original droplet. Yet they will remain large in comparison to the mass of a bacterium. Normal saline droplets would reduce to salt nuclei roughly one-fifth of the former diameter, having a volume of some ten thousand bacteria. The nuclei of such droplets would settle slowly and be carried long distances by light air currents.
November 21, 2025 at 6:05 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
The walls are closing in on those responsible for the worst medical error in history. There's no denying it was a mistake when they let their egos reject the advice of people who knew better, there's no denying it killed an enormous number of people.

Current WHO ADG: www.spiegel.de/internationa...
DER SPIEGEL: But even the World Health Organization didn't take the spread via aerosols seriously and didn’t issue a warning about it until the autumn of 2020 … Farrar: Yes, you are right, that was a very big mistake. We could have prepared better if bigger decisions would have been made around aerosols, around face masks, around the best treatment options, personal protective equipment for nurses, doctors, about the capacity for intensive care units. That would have saved an enormous number of lives. On the video call, tensions rose. At one point, Lidia Morawska, a revered atmospheric physicist who had arranged the meeting, tried to explain how far infectious particles of different sizes could potentially travel. One of the WHO experts abruptly cut her off, telling her she was wrong, Marr recalls. His rudeness shocked her. “You just don’t argue with Lidia about physics,” she says. Morawska had spent more than two decades advising a different branch of the WHO on the impacts of air pollution. When it came to flecks of soot and ash belched out by smokestacks and tailpipes, the organization readily accepted the physics she was describing—that particles of many sizes can hang aloft, travel far, and be inhaled. Now, though, the WHO’s advisers seemed to be saying those same laws didn’t apply to virus-laced respiratory particles. To them, the word airborne only applied to particles smaller than 5 microns. Trapped in their group-specific jargon, the two camps on Zoom literally couldn’t understand one another. Source URL: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
November 21, 2025 at 5:50 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
The negligent, outdated beliefs of medicine's management class (everywhere; from the UK inquiry here) contrasted with well-understood science from 👉1934👈. If you got sick after being told that COVID falls to the ground within 3 feet and N95/FFP2/FFP3 respirators aren't needed, 👉it was their fault.👈
The focus on handwashing over ventilation 12.32. As 2020 progressed, it was increasingly understood that airborne transmission of Covid-19 was a substantial risk and, by 23 July 2020, SAGE had endorsed the importance of good ventilation. ON AIR-BORNE INFECTION.* STUDY II. DROPLETS AND DROPLET NUCLEI. BY W. F. WELLS, t (Beceived for publication June 14, 1934.) The infective range of droplets expelled from the nose or mouth depends primarily upon the time interval spent in the atmosphere. The unresisted falling time from mouth to ground can be readily shown by Newton's Law to be less than a second. Air resistance becomes a negligible factor in determining the time of fall of droplets larger than a tenth millimeter through the height of a man. As droplets decrease in diameter the volume and weight, or gravitational pull, decrease more rapidly than the surface area which determines the resistance to fall through air. Particles smaller than a tenth millimeter diameter soon reach a velocity which remains constant. This fact is expressed by Stokes' Law % which says that the velocity is proportional to the surface area of the droplet or to the square of its diameter. droplets would reach the ground in less than ten seconds (table 1). Whether droplets falling two meters obey Stokes' law or Newton's law, therefore, the time they spend in the air would be small, and their radius of spread would be limited to a few feet. Infection caused by such droplets would therefore appear to be limited both in time and space to the immediate vicinity of the source. TABLE 1. Settling of water droplets in saturated air. Diameter of droplet Falling velocity Time in seconds of Millimeters Centimeters per second falling two meters > 1.0 981 X time in seconds .6 .1 30. 6. .01 .3 600. = 10 minutes .001 .003 60,000. = 16.6 hours It would be incorrect to conclude merely from this, however, that air receiving infected droplets cannot convey such infection long distances. To do so would be to neglect a most important characteristic of liquid droplets, namely their tendency to evaporate. Evaporation causes the volume of water droplets to change, and this change becomes more rapid as the droplet decreases in size. Careful determination of the rate of evaporation has proved that at constant temperature and humidity the rate of change of surface is constant. The life of droplets in unsaturated air is therefore proportional to the square of their diameter. It becomes quite short for small droplets, in fact much shorter than their time of fall if they settled without evaporation. Approximate evaporation times for droplets of different sizes are tabulated below. We find, therefore, that minute droplets settle slowly and evapoTABLE 2. Evaporation time of water droplets in unsaturated air at 18° C* Diameter of droplet Evaporation time Millimeters Seconds 2 660. 1 165. .5 41. .2 6.6 .1 1.7 .05 4 * Computed from data given in chapt. 15, "Evaporation of Droplets." Smoke: A Study of Aerial Disperse Systems; R. Whytlaw-Gray and H. S. Patterson, page 176 Edward Arnold & Co., London, 1932. A chart from Wells (1934) showing that particles smaller than 100 microns shrink (via evaporation) to a size small enough to remain airborne indefinitely before they have time to fall to the ground. Associated text reads: "This is an important difference since it produces a complete change in state of small droplets in comparison with large drops. On chart 1 the curves of evaporation time and falling time (to fall two meters in saturated air) are seen to be almost similar in shape but opposite in direction. The point of intersection gives the size of droplets which would evaporate and particles which would fall two meters in the same time. Somewhere between .1 and .2 mm. lies the droplet size which identifies droplets of mouth spray that reach the ground within the life of the droplet as against droplets that evaporate and remain in the air as droplet nuclei with attached infection."
November 21, 2025 at 5:25 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Get your flu shot. But wear an N95.

👉f it doesn't get inside you, it can't make you sick.👈

Especially with bird flu waiting in the wings (hah!) and no real preparations in place for it, now's the time to get a sample pack of different N95s and find a comfortable one that fits you well.
An image of a packed emergency room. It is poorly lit, and full of sick people waiting for care. The caption reads "You wouldn't drink their spit. Why would you breathe it?" Below that to the right of centre, Honey the Safety Badger is wearing an N95, and says "If it came out of someone else's body, it doesn't belong in yours!". Below that is a smaller caption "Wear a well-fitted N95". At lower left is a QR code linking to a comprehensive transdisciplinary review "Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review", found at: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/cmr.00124-23
November 21, 2025 at 1:25 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Image from Star Wars movie. Top text: Infection control and public health, filling coffins by denying COVID is airborne. Lower text: 200,000 units are ready, with a million more well on the way.
November 21, 2025 at 1:06 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Yes!

From the Bad Place (I keep meaning to repost here...one day...)
Mark Ungrin @Mark_Ungrin · Sep 7, 2024 For obvious reasons we'll hear a lot about the election interference side of the Russian network, but their role at the heart of COVID minimization is increasingly clear, and has killed a *lot* more people. WIRED has a tool that looks at word frequency in the TENET Media videos. Mark Ungrin @Mark_Ungrin · Sep 7, 2024 "Trump" and "Biden" come up a lot, as you'd expect. But here's an interesting data point: spreading propaganda about Russia's invasion of Ukraine is obviously a major priority for them - but COVID, masks etc come up at similar frequency. Think about the implications of that...
November 16, 2025 at 9:56 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
This is why EBM, GRADE etc are so deadly. Between subjectivity and exclusion of experts, they don't actually assess evidence quality - they assess *whether the people in the room like it*.

And once they screw up, commitment bias is driving that bus.

Same paper: science+0$ (L), CAN-PCC+$9M (R)

🤷
Abstract Background A previously published study is cited as evidence that medical masks (MM) are noninferior to N95 respirators(N95) in the prevention of COVID infections. As COVID is transmitted via infectious aerosols generated during coughing as well as routine activities such as breathing and speaking, and N95s (in contrast to MM)are designed, validated and specified in national standards to provide protection against such hazards, we re-analysed the published data to resolve this unexpected result. Methods Study data were extracted from the publication, and analyses pre-specified in the original study protocol but omitted from the publication were carried out. Anomalies identified in the process were subject to additional analyses for statistical significance. Results Prespecified analyses reverse the reported outcome, which is the product of multiple alterations to the trial that were not introduced into the registry until after publication. Methodological shortcomings include compromised randomization, with statistically significant correlation between female sex and allocation to the higher-risk arm of the trial. Trial conditions and results at unregistered trial sites in Egypt were inconsistent with – but overwhelmed findings from – sites in the registered countries, which reflected the expected inferiority of medical masks. Substantial additional sources of bias were identified. Unexpected patterns(p < 5.8 x 10-8)were observed in the data. Conclusions The results of the trial do not support the claim that medical masks are noninferior to N95s for the prevention of COVID-19. From: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/ey7bj_v2 Addressing raised limitations of evidence used (11) by the public: Concerns were raised by a panel member regarding this study. However, this was identified as the best available evidence as no direct evidence was found. Also, rigorous assessment of the study by the evidence synthesis team did not find risk of bias concerns but they did downgrade for imprecision and indirectness. From (EtD section): https://can-pcc.recmap.org/recommendation/3c665ab5-96a2-4519-8617-3b047e30efeb
November 16, 2025 at 7:23 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Then there's this - the paper we critique here is arguably the most impactful clinical trial of the last decade.

Not only is this considered acceptable in infection control and public health, it is 👉celebrated as the best quality evidence the field is able to produce.👈

🫠

osf.io/preprints/me...
Abstract Background A previously published study is cited as evidence that medical masks (MM) are noninferior to N95 respirators(N95) in the prevention of COVID infections. As COVID is transmitted via infectious aerosols generated during coughing as well as routine activities such as breathing and speaking, and N95s (in contrast to MM)are designed, validated and specified in national standards to provide protection against such hazards, we re-analysed the published data to resolve this unexpected result. Methods Study data were extracted from the publication, and analyses pre-specified in the original study protocol but omitted from the publication were carried out. Anomalies identified in the process were subject to additional analyses for statistical significance. Results Prespecified analyses reverse the reported outcome, which is the product of multiple alterations to the trial that were not introduced into the registry until after publication. Methodological shortcomings include compromised randomization, with statistically significant correlation between female sex and allocation to the higher-risk arm of the trial. Trial conditions and results at unregistered trial sites in Egypt were inconsistent with – but overwhelmed findings from – sites in the registered countries, which reflected the expected inferiority of medical masks. Substantial additional sources of bias were identified. Unexpected patterns(p < 5.8 x 10-8)were observed in the data. Conclusions The results of the trial do not support the claim that medical masks are noninferior to N95s for the prevention of COVID-19.
November 14, 2025 at 4:29 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
😮 NOAA Aurora forecast for tonight, from: www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/...
An image showing high probability of aurora borealis being visible across all of Canada and the northern half of the US
November 12, 2025 at 8:30 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
If Evidence Based Medicine has a poster child, it's the 2015 Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control study claiming N95s interfere with breathing in pregnant women.

Here's their setup, which they described as "simulating the actual wearing of an N95 respirator".

The RCT "gold standard" 🤣
A figure showing a spirometry mask either alone, or with a small piece of N95 material less than 10% the size of the full respirator taped over the hole, as used in a 2015 clinical trial widely cited during the pandemic as evidence of "harms" from N95s. To breathe the same volume of air at the same rate through 1/10th the cross sectional area, it has to move 10 times faster. This means flow resistance is increased by a factor of 10 - this is pretty intuitive (unless you're a clinical triallist, apparently), it's the same thing that makes it harder to breathe through a drinking straw than just your open mouth. This means the entire trial was performed under conditions equivalent to wearing 10 N95s on top of one another at once, and everyone involved and everyone who cited this study as meaningful should go and do something they are better equipped to handle than science, like watching paint dry. But since it is a clinical trial, EBM mindlessly treats it as the highest form of evidence - and since almost nothing gets retracted in clinical journals no matter how crappy it is, EBM processes keep using it. The image is from here: https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13756-015-0086-z/figures/2
November 11, 2025 at 12:25 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
When the data speaks for itself (source: www.alberta.ca/stats/dashbo... ):
A chart of influenza cases in Alberta since 2009/2010 showing the drop caused by masking and other mitigations in 2020/2021, and the high levels in 2023 and 2024, likely due to the damage to immune systems caused by COVID infection. There are also QR code links to two relevant publications, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/cmr.00124-23 and https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r1733.short
November 7, 2025 at 9:47 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
A reminder to reporters: be thoughtful about the voices you trust, and the conflicts of interest they hold.

You can't rely on the judgment or motives of someone who participated in a very big mistake that killed a lot of people to tell you how bad the consequences are later.

Journalism 101.

🤨
DER SPIEGEL: But even the World Health Organization didn't take the spread via aerosols seriously and didn’t issue a warning about it until the autumn of 2020 … Farrar: Yes, you are right, that was a very big mistake. We could have prepared better if bigger decisions would have been made around aerosols, around face masks, around the best treatment options, personal protective equipment for nurses, doctors, about the capacity for intensive care units. That would have saved an enormous number of lives. 'No new data' to make conclusive decision But that level of uncertainty over how big a role airborne transmission plays has also led some infectious disease experts to question the push to label it a significant threat before all the research is in, backing up the WHO's current position. "It's creating a false sense of alarm, and it doesn't contribute to our understanding or the management of this infection," said Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease physician at Toronto General Hospital. "Now, could there be some airborne transmission? Maybe a little bit, but I think it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of transmission falls toward the droplet end of the spectrum." Aerosol expert Linsey Marr said people need to place more emphasis on the public health measures we're already taking in order to stop the potential spread of airborne transmission. (Evan Mitsui/CBC) Bogoch said the letter and subsequent article in the New York Times fractured the scientific community and caused a stir with the public over concerns whether enough was being done to address the threat of airborne transmission — but in reality, it's nothing new. "This concept keeps coming up. This issue has arisen in January, and it sort of rears its head from time to time," he said. No new research has arisen that should lead to a definitive answer one way or the other, he said. "There's no new data. There's no new information. There's just a letter and some angry headlines." B.C.'s provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, said the controversy has been overblown. "I actually think it's a little bit of a tempest in a teapot in that we all agree on the extremes and we're fussing a little bit about how much we need to focus on the bits in the middle," she said in her COVID-19 briefing Monday. "It is important to continue to look at the data, to look at where we're seeing transmission events and adapt if we need to and put in additional measures." An influential Canadian doctor and top adviser to the World Health Organization has come under fire from international experts for his controversial comments downplaying the risk of airborne spread of the coronavirus. Dr. John Conly, an infectious diseases physician and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary, not only denied that aerosol transmission is a primary route of transmission, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, but also said that N95 masks can cause "harms" — including acne. "Any time you look at benefits, you need to look at harms, of which there are many harms with N95s — and I think to ignore them you are at your peril," Conly told a panel discussion at the University of Calgary on April 9 on the role of airborne transmission in the COVID-19 pandemic. "There is acne, also issues with eczema, conjunctivitis, CO2 retention; there has been decreased O2 concentrations in pregnant women — many side-effects to this." His comments on oxygen and carbon dioxide have been largely contradicted, with a 2014 study in the American Journal of Infection Control showing no significant differences in levels between pregnant and non-pregnant women wearing N95 masks.
November 7, 2025 at 2:59 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
With ALT text
Reposted by Jacqueline Antonovich Matt Novak @paleofuture.bsky.social. 5h I think Dick Cheney's death today highlighted this divide. The Democrats who still say shit like "reach across the aisle" and praise evil people are playing to a political audience that no longer exists. Mamdani wasn't cruel to Cuomo in a Trumpism style, but he didn't concede anything either. Meredith Shiner @meredithshine.... 6h I love that Zohran did not praise Cuomo in his speech. You absolutely do not have to say nice things about bad people. We should normalize that in "polite" politics: Praising bad people is not actually "civility." --------------- Reposted by NB COVID info Montreal Mike @mikemontreal.bsky..... 13h Mark my words- Poilievre is going to lose 3-5 MPs within weeks if he gaslights hard on this budget. He will bitch his way to handing the Liberal party a majority. #cdnpoli
November 5, 2025 at 11:43 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Seeing these two posts juxtaposed in the feed is right on the nose. Canada's MAGA-from-Temu Conservative leader, who's never had a job outside politics in his life and can't undergo the screening for security clearance because of what it will reveal, just had a bad day.

May there be many more.
November 5, 2025 at 11:23 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
The resulting combination of unwarranted self-confidence, contempt for hard-science expertise, and deep ignorance of how science actually works appears to have driven 2020's "very big mistake", where a medical manager shouted down top experts on aerosol transmission.

www.wired.com/story/the-te...
On the video call, tensions rose. At one point, Lidia Morawska, a revered atmospheric physicist who had arranged the meeting, tried to explain how far infectious particles of different sizes could potentially travel. One of the WHO experts abruptly cut her off, telling her she was wrong, Marr recalls. His rudeness shocked her. “You just don’t argue with Lidia about physics,” she says. Morawska had spent more than two decades advising a different branch of the WHO on the impacts of air pollution. When it came to flecks of soot and ash belched out by smokestacks and tailpipes, the organization readily accepted the physics she was describing—that particles of many sizes can hang aloft, travel far, and be inhaled. Now, though, the WHO’s advisers seemed to be saying those same laws didn’t apply to virus-laced respiratory particles. To them, the word airborne only applied to particles smaller than 5 microns. Trapped in their group-specific jargon, the two camps on Zoom literally couldn’t understand one another.
November 4, 2025 at 10:35 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Hah! I just posted that on the end! Amazing news!

Albeit a bit disturbing that despite Dr. Morawska continuing to rack up all these awards for her work to defeat the public health and infection control kakistocracy and save lives, there's almost zero attention on those who fought *against* her.
A goose chasing someone, and saying "Who did those scientists save all those people FROM?" and then "WHO WERE THEY SAVING THEM FROM?!?"
November 4, 2025 at 4:22 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Public health and infection control leaders simply cannot be trusted with the power to define "misinformation". We know for a fact that they will abuse that power to silence critics and shut down scientific debate, because 👉they already have👈.

They showed us who they really are. Believe them.
Tweet posted by WHO March 28th, 2020, spreading the false claim that COVID is not airborne - the infamous "very big mistake" that wasted "an enormous number of lives". World Health Organization (WHO) @WHO FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks. To protect yourself: -keep 1m distance from others -disinfect surfaces frequently -wash/rub your 👐 -avoid touching your 👀👃👄
November 4, 2025 at 4:01 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
🧵This "public" Nov 5 forum highlights the hypocrisy of public health institutions. Topics include misinformation and public trust, and an attendee sent me this: questions for the panellists must be submitted in advance (so hard ones on e.g. PPE, aerosols etc can be censored).
ubccdc.med.ubc.ca
Program – Global Health Security Forum Time Agenda 12:00 PM – 12:30 PM Registration and Lunch 12:30 PM – 01:00 PM Opening Remarks from Siem Te Ta-in (Coast Salish Knowledge Keeper) Opening Remarks by BCCDC 01:00 PM – 1:45 PM Keynote Presentation Rethinking Global Health Security in the Post-COVID Era — Are we better prepared Maria D. Van Kerkhove, Director a.i., Epidemic and Pandemic Management, Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Programme, World Health Organization 01:45 PM – 4:00 PM Presentations (20 minutes each) 1:45 PM – 2:05 PM Indigenous health and rights at the forefront of health security Shannon Waters, Deputy Provincial Health Officer, British Columbia, Canada 2:06 PM – 2:26 PM Public trust and health security Heidi J Larson, Professor of Anthropology, Risk and Decision Science, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK 2:26 PM – 2:46 PM Misinformation and tackling misinformation—what is needed at the global scale Tara Kirk Sell, Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Johns Hopkins University, USA 2:47 PM – 3:07 PM Data, equity and intelligence: Building inclusive surveillance systems Naveed Janjua, Director, UBC Centre for Disease Control, University of British Columbia, Canada 3:08 PM – 3:28PM Are we ready to tackle another pandemic: vaccine from development and to uptake? Natasha Crowcroft, Vice President, Infectious Diseases and Vaccination Programs, Public Health Agency of Canada, Canada 3:29 PM – 3:49 PM One Health approach to tackle emerging threats Hung Nguyen-Viet, Regional Director Asia, International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya 4:00 PM – 4:30 PM Break and Networking 4:30 PM – 5:50 PM Panel Discussion Where do we go from here? Building a resilient global health future Panelists: Maria D. Van Kerkhove, Director a.i., Epidemic and Pandemic Management, Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Programme, World Health Organization Natasha Crowcroft, Vice President, I… Program and Speakers The final program and speaker bios are available on the Global Health Security Forum website, here. Questions and Engagement The Zoom Q&A and chat functions will be disabled during the event to ensure a smooth virtual experience. We encourage you to submit your questions in advance or during the event through Sli.do: During the keynote presentation and panel discussion, there will be opportunities for questions from the virtual audience. To help us manage both in-person and virtual participation, we encourage you to submit your questions in advance through Sli.do. As there will not be time for questions immediately following individual presentations, we encourage you to submit any presentation-related questions through Sli.do, and we will do our best to address them during the panel discussion. Event code: 6307623 (enter at https://www.slido.com/) Direct link to join: https://app.sli.do/event/i82pph2eHYmSajQwWN8zzG When submitting your question through Sli.do, please select the appropriate label (e.g., keynote, specific presentation, or panel discussion) to indicate who your question is directed to. This will help us ensure your question is shared with the right speaker or session. We look forward to connecting with you online for a day of engaging dialogue, learning, and global collaboration. Warm regards, Dr. Naveed Janjua Director, UBC CDC On behalf of the UBC Centre for Disease Control Naveed Zafar Janjua, MBBS, MSc, DrPH Director, University of British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (UBCCDC) Clinical Professor, School of Population and Public Health University of British Columbia
November 4, 2025 at 4:01 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
@sportsnetpr.bsky.social still sucks after a both reboot and restarting the router
November 2, 2025 at 2:57 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Well, @sportsnetpr.bsky.social sucks...
November 2, 2025 at 2:39 AM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
I feel like a flyer from Conservative Member of Parliament Cheryl Gallant with the quote "Reconciliation must not come at the expense of legal certainty" captures how sincere the party is about a lot of things.
A flyer from Conservative Member of Parliament Cheryl Gallant with the title "PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THREAT"
October 29, 2025 at 9:42 PM
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
An image of a packed emergency room. It is poorly lit, and full of sick people waiting for care. The caption reads "You wouldn't drink their spit. Why would you breathe it?" Below that to the right of centre, Honey the Safety Badger is wearing an N95, and says "If it came out of someone else's body, it doesn't belong in yours!". Below that is a smaller caption "Wear a well-fitted N95". At lower left is a QR code linking to a comprehensive transdisciplinary review "Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review", found at: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/cmr.00124-23
October 29, 2025 at 1:53 PM